If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Try that stunt most places and see if the results are even close to similar.

Based on the limited info provided, the use of deadly force was never legally appropriate.

I applaud the guy's getting involved and trying to help out, but absolutely condemn the methods he used when he got involved. All the pursesnatcher needs is to find an attorney willing to do up the paperwork for a civil suit - and there are probably lots of such available - and go to town on "Our Hero's" head and wallet. And win!

If you are wearing a gun for anything other than defense of self or innocent others from imminent death or serious bodily injury you need to have sucessfully graduated from the police academy or be wearing the uniform of an armed private security guard.

stay safe.

"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
----Allahpundit

In Texas, our laws were recently updated such that the display of a handgun by a CHL holder (I do not know if the man was a CHL holder or not) is legally justified when the use of force is justified, whereas previously the display of a handgun was only justified when the use of deadly force was justified. Whether or not this has ANY bearing on a CIVIL case, I do not know, but I'm guessing it could depending on how the law is written.

Also in Texas you're basically always legally justified in using force in defense of a 3rd person when that 3rd person is justified in using force in defense of themself.

So, criminally I don't think he has anything to worry about.

Civilly, well, any time you use force against another person you're at risk of a civil suit, no matter how justified you were. If he shot an intruder in his own home, in the night time, he could still have risk of civil suit. Well, maybe not, but you know what I mean - I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers that would be willing to try a suit.

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place.

...

(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of force or deadly force under Chapter 9.

...and don't forget people have a right to intervene in order to stop a felony in progress -- aside for the right most people have, in most states I guess, to make a citizen arrest. As for purse-snatching, who knows how much money is in a stolen purse to make that crime one witnesses a felony ($500 or above in Texas law?), or not a felony? So, instead one does NOTHING to stop the crime then? Or does nothing to retrieve the stolen property?

Yes, these victims SHOULD be carrying so they can look after THEMSELVES, but that's another topic...

Of course, it should be assumed by anyone about to "get involved" that in trying to make an arrest, the situation might escalate when the "suspect" resists such arrest, and you'd end up needing to protect yourself (like cops do), so you DO need to have a gun on you to get involved safely. And multiple "suspects" make that even more dangerous. Preferably, do NOT get involved like those 2 guys in the news recently who came to the rescue of a woman being attacked by a "group of men," and 1 of the 2 would-be rescuers was killed and the other wounded by said "group of men." Yes, a VERY admirable response by those 2 men, certainly, but what were they thinking would happen to THEM being unarmed and facing said "group of men" (and this low-life "group of men" will be back out on the street in no time while we still have 1 dead and 1 wounded decent citizen -- but that's another topic, too).

Moral of that incident (and hundreds like it): Don't get involved unless you are armed -- or expect to be added to the victim list for nobly trying anyway.

But you know, the "better" Texas laws re: use of a firearm -- such as allowing one to stop a crime, deal with "criminal mischief," protect personal property and even retrieve stolen property -- are only actions allowed "at night." Texas criminals just need to start doing all that predatory activity during the DAY and avoid that extra risk of getting shot "at night." As we know from all the sorry repressive/restricting gun laws (ownership of, carrying of), complicated laws re: the use of firearms for self-defense/reaction to criminal attack only hinder decent citizens from responding to crimes and put them at further personal risk, yet do nothing to deter, put at risk or stop the criminals who are committing said crimes.

I'd like to see Texas change the "at night" to ANY TIME. Or just drop the "at night"/"during the night time" so it DOES apply to ANY time, 24/7. Is a crime at night any less potentially dangerous than one committed in the broad daylight of an afternoon? Hardly...

As I've said before, the only "justice" most criminals see is at the hands of an armed citizen, preferably accompanied by flashes of light and loud noise (criminals don't see "justice" in court, that's for sure).

That "citizen response" should not be infringed upon at all (or second-guessed at by people who weren't there).

What are your thoughts concerning the cop having the good guy get down on the ground? I know it's standard procedure and although I wouldn't like to have to do it myself, I can understand the reason it is done what with the fact that coming into the situation, he has no idea who is whom and what is really happening.

For all we know, the guy proned out on his own. Kind of a bullet wound prophylactic. Either way, good on him for helping when he didn't have to. All too often people look the other way and that's one of the things the bad guys count on.

Try that stunt most places and see if the results are even close to similar.

Based on the limited info provided, the use of deadly force was never legally appropriate.

I applaud the guy's getting involved and trying to help out, but absolutely condemn the methods he used when he got involved. All the pursesnatcher needs is to find an attorney willing to do up the paperwork for a civil suit - and there are probably lots of such available - and go to town on "Our Hero's" head and wallet. And win!

If you are wearing a gun for anything other than defense of self or innocent others from imminent death or serious bodily injury you need to have sucessfully graduated from the police academy or be wearing the uniform of an armed private security guard.

It is shameful to second-guess the outcome of any circumstance where a victim was created, and yet the actions of the blameless lead to a non-violent resolution of the situation.

People don't ask to be put in these situations, and the last thing we should do it tell them they "should be cops" because they made the best out of a bad situation.

The problem isn't that some folks fail to respond in the Skidmark-approved manner. The problem is that, in most states, the law will be used as a tool against the victim because it can be, rather than because it should be. If law enforcement can't use reasonable discretion (they evidently can't), then I'm in favor of eliminating any such laws which would criminalize this man outright.

I would rather see a citizen stop a purse-snatcher without anybody getting hurt (notice I didn't consider the irrelevant-after-the-fact presence of a firearm) then I would see another cop on the streets.

What are your thoughts concerning the cop having the good guy get down on the ground? I know it's standard procedure and although I wouldn't like to have to do it myself, I can understand the reason it is done what with the fact that coming into the situation, he has no idea who is whom and what is really happening.

If another good Samaritan citizen would be warranted in doing the same, then fine. If not, the I'd question whether the act is justified. That's basically my first test. Maybe not fail-proof but I think generally it works pretty well to determine if a cop is overstepping or not.

...by endangering the victim as the story states, they escalated from theft (purse snatching) to robbery...a felony, and covered under deadly force justification...in Texas...he had the right to choose to intervene or not...once having made the choice to help her, he was entirely within the law...and to be applauded...
...others may have chosen to "just be a good witness"...nothing wrong with that choice, either...

...funny thing about Texas, we don't give a hoot what other states think of our laws...if someone doesn't like the way they read, there are 49 other choices...

Actually, sheepdog, I'm thinking that dragging the victim with the perps vehicle elevated the crime to assault, maybe even assault w/ deadly weapon, so intervention by CHL holder would be justified in her defense.
Just my 0.02. IANAL.

Lower the crime rate by lowering the criminal survival rate!
When people say 'God Bless America' I'm sure He says, "I gave you Texas!"

...could easily go that way, too...but with robbery, the justification's clearly spelled out in law...not leaving nearly so much for the GJ to think about, should the deadly force be employed...in this case, the show was enough...and he was well covered by law from three different approaches...I'd buy him a steak!!!

Armed response for a purse snatching, haven't people learned anything with George Zimmerman. Lucky for this man he was not shot by police, while playing hero. While many may want to pat him on the back, someday he may take an innocent life. Too many factors to know if a perceived crime is a actual crime.

Unlike the wannabe heroes, I prefer to defend only my family and myself, sounds harsh, but too bad. I would never intentionally be as stupid as George Zimmerman. Wanna be a hero, put on a badge!

All too often we see over and over again the CC mentality of ambush the bad guys, play hero, stop crime. I have no idea if this guy is one of them, but I do see the chance for a disaster over a PURSE SNATCHING. And the response here is surprising considering the statements of the I can draw faster than you can draw concealed member. He admitted the desire to shoot the bad guy here for us all to see, and it has been stated by big time CC celebrities and trainers. Go ahead, stick your neck out, I will not!

I fully agree with Skid, +1

Here's a thought~~How many purse snatching incidents has there been at OC events in Texas?

Last edited by WalkingWolf; 05-13-2014 at 08:43 AM.

It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.

Robert E. Lee

The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.

...calling it a purse snatching ignores the facts as presented...the endangering of her life by using the force of a moving vehicle...by TX law, it's now much more than a purse snatching...as explained above...
...I respect a person's choice to not become involved...but if it were my mother or wife, I'd see it as a lot more than a purse snatching...and appreciate anyone who helped her...

...as to this posted above:
'But you know, the "better" Texas laws re: use of a firearm -- such as allowing one to stop a crime, deal with "criminal mischief," protect personal property and even retrieve stolen property -- are only actions allowed "at night." '

...the only part of the above where the law mentions "at night" is the use of deadly force to protect property from theft or criminal mischief...other crimes aren't covered by those restrictions...PC9:42

...even at night, there are restrictions on deadly force in case of theft, as the statute explains...

It seems to me that, should passersby refuse to intervene, the only option is law enforcement intervention (or none at all).

Do you imagine that law enforcement will be pointing airsoft guns when they make their arrest of a "purse snatcher"? Whatever they do point, we all know they aren't half as liable for their mistakes as is the average citizen.

That being the case, it seems that the biggest remaining grounds for criticism is "you'll go to jail!". But this guy didn't go to jail. This guy was lauded by everybody, including law enforcement. Only a few gun guys have seen fit to levy criticism.

Special forces training gone bad when a deputy unaware that soldiers were in a simulated exercise shot two soldiers, one fatally.

There is a reality television show that was on recently by a network where hidden cameras watched to see people's reactions to incidents. I was trying to find the link, maybe someone can help of a training incident of robbery of a convenience store where a CC holder pulled a gun on a police officer. Not to mention the numerous incidents of LP attempting to detain shoplifters and getting threatened with a gun. There are so many scenereos that this could have been other than a crime. She could have been a armed criminal and the snatcher a plain clothes police officer getting the gun away from her after a incident. Could have been a friend pulling a joke. It did not turn out that way, but it has happened. In German "stummen Kopf"!

This ya`hoo was lucky, very very lucky. The only way to know if a incident is indeed a crime is if YOU are the victim, or you know the victims. I will not be so stupid, and will not pat someone on the back for brave stupidity.

Last edited by WalkingWolf; 05-13-2014 at 10:08 AM.

It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.

Robert E. Lee

The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.

I am amazed, after the danger has passed the "good Samaritan" holds the gun on two people for possibly a misdemeaner crime. What would he have done if they got up, and walked or run away? Shoot them?

What a moron, clearly playing cop! I am sorry but the good this man did is ruined by his stupidity and desire to play policeman. Once the crime had stopped and the victim was out of danger, then the gun should have been holstered. This is NOT a incident to paint as the purpose of carry or proper gun handling. Remember the rules, do not point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy. I am amazed that people are backing this behavior.

It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.

Robert E. Lee

The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.

...opinions must bow to the law of the state in which it occurred...Texas...and, in Texas, an armed response to a felony, which this was, and a citizen's arrest of a felon, which this was, is perfectly legal, as the law enforcement officials in this case agreed...the man did nothing wrong, or stupid, you just disagree with his choices...which is your right...all the coulda woulda mighta scenarios were possible...but to those there watching, it WAS a felony...a life was endangered...and, in Texas, he acted completely appropriately...in this case with these facts...

My opinion is that HE IS a idiot with a gun. Cite that purse snatching is a felony. AND he had no authority to shoot while the perps were not resisting, even police do not have authority to shoot under these circumstances, or they can and have been found guilty in federal court for civil rights violations under color of law.

IF we expect LE to act appropriately we should not counter that by acting stupid.

It is down right ignorant to shoot a person over a purse snatching, and when their is NO danger present at the time of shooting. This man gives ammo to anti gun people with his ignorance and playing cop. Just the very things that antis love to point to.

It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.

Robert E. Lee

The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.

My opinion is that HE IS a idiot with a gun. Cite that purse snatching is a felony. AND he had no authority to shoot while the perps were not resisting, even police do not have authority to shoot under these circumstances, or they can and have been found guilty in federal court for civil rights violations under color of law.

IF we expect LE to act appropriately we should not counter that by acting stupid.

It is down right ignorant to shoot a person over a purse snatching, and when their is NO danger present at the time of shooting. This man gives ammo to anti gun people with his ignorance and playing cop. Just the very things that antis love to point to.

A: I missed the part where anybody shot anybody.

B: I missed the part where, in Texas, it is illegal to present a firearm on a person committing a violent crime (this was more than a mere "purse snatching")

C: Citizens have liability for their actions. If their judgment is correct, they incur no liability. If not, they are liable. (This does not apply to police.) What, then, is the problem?

He pointed a gun, that is deadly force, and one of the rules of safe handling of firearms is not to point a gun at anything you do not intend to shoot or destroy. He showed his cards by pulling the gun, he had two options, shoot or back down. There was no indications in the photos and videos he would have backed down as the danger was gone, HE CONTINUED TO BRANDISH HIS FIREARM!

This is the very behavior of police we complain about, and NOW are we going to pat a civilian on the back for it???

It is questionable that he was justified in pulling his gun in the first place, after the danger had passed there was absolutely no excuse to endanger not only the perps, but the surrounding members of the public with his firearm.

Just absolutely shameful that just because this incident did not backfire only a few gun owners see the foolishness of this person. Let's also keep in mind he pointed his gun in the direction of those taking photos. I don't care what the reason any idiot points a gun at me he better be prepared to pull the trigger. I have no sympathy for idiots.

It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.

Robert E. Lee

The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.

But I'm not willing to call this guy the/an aggressor, in this particular case.

Absent aggression, my determination of "foolishness" is of little more consequence than my probable distaste for his preference in music.

It does not matter whether he was the aggressor or not, deadly force was not justified. AND to top it off if another LAC had arrived after the fact and saw two people being threatened with deadly force that LAC WOULD BE justified to use deadly force. This is how insane it is to play cop and pull guns on people when your life is not in danger.

The guy stood there trying to act like a cop, that is very clear. While he looks like a hero he is a danger to the people. He could have shot a innocent person in this display of machismo.

GZ was covered under Florida law, but because he was lacking in mental ability(idiot) he got drug through the wringer even though he broke no law. AND he was clearly covered under Florida statutes. If morons want to think they ride the edge of statutes and get away with it I have no pity on them when they play pick up the soap in the grey bar hotel.

Last edited by WalkingWolf; 05-13-2014 at 12:52 PM.

It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.

Robert E. Lee

The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.

A man prepared to defend himself against the reasonably probability of assault by a demonstrably violent assailant. Perhaps he exercised poor muzzle control doing so. Otherwise, he performed a correct arrest for a genuine crime committed in his presence.

The mere act of holding a firearm while effecting an arrest does not require a person to shoot someone if that someone, say, runs away. We have no basis on which to assume this man would have committed murder in that event.

I submit that,

1. A person has a right to intervene in a crime being committed, using force concomitant with the threat presented.

2. Such person has a right to defend himself should the original assailant respond to this intervention with force.

3. The mere holding of a firearm does not constitute force.

4. The force entailed in effecting an arrest without injury or battery is, on its face, reasonable and appropriate for crimes involving the inherently greater degree of force of actual battery.

Based on 1-4, I conclude that this man did not use unreasonable force. At worst, he committed the offense of poor muzzle control (which, if I recall from some of the long gun OC discussions, you are fine with anyway).

A man prepared to defend himself against the reasonably probability of assault by a demonstrably violent assailant. Perhaps he exercised poor muzzle control doing so. Otherwise, he performed a correct arrest for a genuine crime committed in his presence.

The mere act of holding a firearm does not require to shoot someone if that person, say, runs away. We have no basis on which to assume this man would have committed murder in that event.

I submit that,

1. A person has a right to intervene in a crime being committed, using force concomitant with the threat presented.

2. Such person has a right to defend himself should the original assailant respond to this intervention with force.

3. The mere holding of a firearm does not constitute force.

4. The force entailed in affecting an arrest without injury or battery is, on its face, reasonable and appropriate (assuming the arrest itself was appropriate).

Based on 1-4, I conclude that this man did not use unreasonable force. At worst, he committed the offense of poor muzzle control (which, if I recall from some of the long gun OC discussions, you are fine with anyway).

WRONG! Deadly force WAS used, and if you doubt it, see what happens when somebody points a gun at a cop, or at I. Not to mention the fact where were his children when all this took place? Were they unattended? Were they in the line of fire? What would have happened to them in a fire fight. Cops in Texas have been known to shoot one armed, one legged, wheel chaired people for pointing a pen. And getting away with it, because they felt a pen was deadly force. Give me a break, this was stupid, incredibly stupid.

This guy is a complete moron! A red herring is fish and has nothing to do with people who do not have enough common sense to get out of the rain. It is absolutely silly to start throwing red herrings red herrings every time you do not like the obvious. You are just as bad as the guy who puts his fingers in his ears and says "I can't hear you".

There is no red herring except YOURS! The man pulled a gun for a crime that endangered NOBODY, he continued to endanger the public, AND HIS OWN CHILDREN, by continuing with acting like a cop. The real stupidity is the lack of intelligence of people to see how dumb and reckless is act was. That is no red herring, that IS the facts. If you feel you are justified to shoot someone over a purse snatching then I question your ability to act responsibly with a firearm. If you pull your firearm in the presence of your children while your children and you are in no danger I question your ability to act responsibly with a firearm.

It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.

Robert E. Lee

The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.